On the anatomy and physiology of the male urethra, and on the pathology of strictures of that canal / by Henry Hancock.

  • Hancock, Henry, 1809-1880.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the anatomy and physiology of the male urethra, and on the pathology of strictures of that canal / by Henry Hancock. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    17/102 (page 7)
    eminently distinguislied, from observation, arrived at the conclusion that the urethra was muscular; but his opinions, but with few exceptions, met with little support. He dis- tinctly asserted that the urethra is muscular, and is, therefore, capable of contracting its canal similar to an intestine. This, he adds, makes it siabject to diseases peculiar to muscle in general, which is indeed the only proof we have of its being muscular. Sir E. Home also, from the microscopical investigations of M. Bauer, con- ceived the idea that the urethra was surrounded by mus- cular fibres; and had the instruments employed possessed a higher magnifying power, and the use of the microscope been better understood, it is very probable that M. Bauer's researches would have been definite and conclusive; but, as it is, he -assigned a wrong locality for -the muscular fibres, placing them immediately external to the thin membrane of the urethra, whereas they are separated from it by elastic and non-elastic cellular tissue, to the latter of which his representation of what he called his muscular fibres bears the greatest resemblance. Mr. Wilson also, (at page 149,) asserts the existence of muscular fibres be- tween the urethra and corpus spongiosum, and that he had repeatedly seen packets of longitudinal fibres connected to each other laterally in such a manner, and puttmg on so marked an appearance, that he could entertain no doubt of their being muscular. And (at page 363) he goes so far as to assert that these fibres are apparent to the naked eye. What Mr. Wilson imagined was muscular fibre, is in fact principally non-elastic cellular tissue, as the mus- cular fibres, though sufficiently apparent under the mi- croscope, are much too delicate to be distinguished by the naked eye. Although Mr. Wilson made this statement, he does not appear to have taken any means of verifying